HPLC calibration;Validation of Analytical Methodology and Calibration

Guidance for the
Validation of Analytical Methodology
and Calibration of Equipment used
for Testing of Illicit Drugs in Seized
Materials and Biological Specimens
Vienna International Centre, PO Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel.: (+43-1) 26060-0, Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5866, www.unodc.org
United Nations publication
ISBN 978-92-1-148243-0
Sales No. E.09.XI.16
ST/NAR/41
FOR UNITED NATIONS USE ONLY
*0984578*
Printed in Austria
V.09-84578—October 2009—200 A commitment to quality and continuous improvement

Photo credits:
UNODC Photo Library

Laboratory and Scientific Section
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
Vienna
Guidance for the
Validation of Analytical Methodology and
Calibration of Equipment used for
Testing of Illicit Drugs in Seized Materials
and Biological Specimens
A commitment to quality and continuous improvement
UNITED NATIONS
New York, 2009

UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION
Sales No. E.09.XI.16
ISBN 978-92-1-148243-0
ST/NAR/41
This publication has not been formally edited.
Acknowledgements
This manual was produced by the Laboratory and Scientific Section (LSS) of the
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and its preparation was coor-
dinated by Iphigenia Naidis and Satu Turpeinen, staff of UNODC LSS (headed by
Justice Tettey).
LSS wishes to express its appreciation and thanks to the members of the Standing
Panel of the UNODC’s International Quality Assurance Programme, Dr. Robert
Anderson, Dr. Robert Bramley, Dr. David Clarke, and Dr. Pirjo Lillsunde, for the
conceptualization of this manual, their valuable contributions, the review and finali-
zation of the document.*
*Contact details of named individuals can be requested from the UNODC Laboratory and Scientific
Section (P.O. Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria).

iii
Contents
Page
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Purpose of the manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3. Layout and terminology used in this manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4. Use of the manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Validation and verification of analytical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.
Introduction: role of validation within quality assurance and
good laboratory practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Evolution of a new method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Preliminary steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. Method validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5. Method verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6. Validation/verification parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7. Method performance monitoring and review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.8. Inter-laboratory collaborative exercises/proficiency tests . . . . . . . . . 14
2.9. Practical guidelines for validation and verification of methods . . . 15
2.9.1. Seized materials—qualitative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
(a) Colour test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
(b) Microcrystal tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
(c) Spectroscopic techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
(d) Thin layer chromatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
(e) GC/HPLC/CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
(f) Immunoassay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.9.2. Seized materials—quantitative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
(a) Spectroscopic techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
(b) GC/HPLC/CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.9.3. Biological specimens—qualitative analysis
(a) Thin layer chromatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

iv
Page
(b) GC/HPLC/CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
(c) Immunoassay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.9.4. Biological specimens—quantitative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
(a) GC/HPLC/CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.
Calibration/performance verification of instrumentation
and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2. Metrological requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.
Procedures for calibration/performance verification of
instrumentation and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Autopipettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Melting point apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
pH meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Ovens and heating blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Water baths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Balances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Refrigerators and freezers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Instruments for immunological methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
UV-visible spectrometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Infrared spectrometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Gas chromatographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
High performance liquid chromatographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Mass spectrometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Chromatographic integrators and data systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.
Model standard operating procedures for validation of a new
analytical method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Annex. Glossary of terms used in this manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The UNODC Laboratory and Scientific Section provides support to laboratories in
introducing and implementing a quality management system through a number of
initiatives, including the provision of reference samples of controlled substances,
laboratory manuals on recommended methods, training opportunities and the Inter-
national Collaborative Exercises scheme and by promoting and facilitating the
exchange of information, material and data [1].
The validation of analytical methods and the calibration of equipment are important
aspects of quality assurance in the laboratory. This manual deals with both of these
within the context of testing of illicit drugs in seized materials and biological speci-
mens. Further information on quality assurance is given in other UNODC manuals.
1.2 Purpose of the manual
The manual is intended to provide an introduction to the validation of analytical methods,
and also the performance verification of laboratory equipment. It has been designed to
provide practical guidance to national authorities and analysts in the implementation
of method validation within their existing internal quality assurance programmes.
The procedures described in the manual represent a synthesis of the experience of
scientists from several reputable laboratories around the world. Many professional
organizations have also developed guidelines for method validation as a component
of quality assurance and good laboratory practices, and these have been reviewed
in preparing this manual. While there is diversity with respect to detail in method
validation protocols according to their context, there is also a common thread of
principle underlying all systems. In general, this manual attempts to promote and
harmonize national efforts by providing internationally acceptable guidelines. Impor-
tantly, it also focuses specifically on the issue of quality assurance and good laboratory
practices in drug testing laboratories. It can also serve as an educational document
and as a means of encouraging laboratories to consider quality assurance matters.

2 Guidance for Testing of Illicit Drugs in Seized Materials and Biological Specimens
1.3 Layout and terminology used in this manual
Subsequent parts are concerned with validation of analytical methods and calibra-
tion/performance verification of instrumentation and equipment. Method validation
and verification aims to ensure that the results produced are fit for their intended
purpose while calibration/performance verification of instrumentation and equipment
is concerned with ensuring that they are performing correctly. Validation of an
analytical system, often referred to as system suitability testing, is concerned with
checking the performance of the combination of method and equipment in day-to-day
analytical procedures.
The manual is divided into four major parts and a glossary of terms.
PART 1 gives an overview of the theory and practice of method validation and
instrument calibration/performance verification.
PART 2 is intended to be a practical guide for analysts. It contains prescriptive
recommendations on how to validate qualitative and quantitative methods, for both
seized materials and biological specimens. These “quick start” recommendations are
to assist in quickly and systematically identifying the validation requirements.
PART 3 is intended to be a practical guide for calibration/performance verification
of instrumentation and equipment subdivided into procedures for different instru-
mentation and equipment.
PART 4 contains examples of standard operating procedures for method validation
to assist the laboratory manager in preparing these documents for inclusion in the
quality manual of the laboratory.
The ANNEX provides a glossary of selected terms which are particularly relevant
to the topics of this manual.
1.4 Use of the manual
The suggested approaches to method validation given in this manual have been
chosen on the basis of proven usefulness and value. However, while several skeleton
models for method validation are provided which can, in part, be used directly, it
is recommended that managers of laboratories should supervise the preparation of
in-house validation procedures following the guidelines given. The final choice of
the method validation system remains in the hands of the laboratory manager, who
should also take responsibility for ensuring that staff comply with the prescribed
procedures.

Introduction 3
Attention is drawn to the importance of adequately trained staff where matters of
quality assurance are concerned. Implementation of a written or formalized quality
assurance programme, as required by an external accreditation system, can only be
effectively carried out in cooperation with an informed and aware staff.
An important adjunct to the development of an internal quality assurance programme
is participation in an external proficiency testing scheme and laboratories are encour-
aged to take part in proficiency testing programmes and ring tests such as the
International Collaborative Exercises (ICE) set up by UNODC within the Interna-
tional Quality Assurance Programme (IQAP). Within the context of validation of
analytical methods, the importance of inter-laboratory tests is highlighted below (see
part 2.8.)
The Laboratory and Scientific Section would welcome observations on the contents
and usefulness of the present manual. Comments may be addressed to:
Laboratory and Scientific Section
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
Vienna International Centre, VIC
PO Box 500
1400 Vienna
Austria
Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5967
Email: lab@unodc.org
Website: www.unodc.org

HPLC calibration;Validation of Analytical Methodology and Calibration

5
2.
Validation and verification
of analytical methods
2.1
Introduction: role of validation within quality
assurance and good laboratory practices
Methods used in an analytical chemistry laboratory must be evaluated and tested to
ensure that they produce valid results suitable for their intended purpose, i.e. they
must be validated. Any laboratory which adopts UNODC recommended methods*
should either revalidate them or verify them as appropriate to ensure that they work
properly in its local environment. Verification involves fewer (see part 2.4 and 2.5
below) experimental operations than validation.
Any method newly introduced into a laboratory should also be documented and all
analysts who will use it must receive adequate training and demonstrate their com-
petence in the method before commencing actual casework. Commercial methods
also need revalidation, or at least verification. Manufacturers’ recommended proce-
dures should be followed as closely as possible. Otherwise, if significant changes
are made, full validation is necessary. If a method is modified or applied to a new
situation (e.g., different sample matrix), revalidation or verification would be required
depending on the extent of the modification and the nature of new situation. Revali-
dation would be required, for example, when a method designed to work for urine
is applied to blood; verification would be required when a chromatographic column
of a different nature or dimension is used. No action is required where a modifica-
tion is only small, for example when a chromatographic column is changed for
another of the same type.
The validation or verification of a method follows a standardized set of experimental
tests which produce data relating to accuracy, precision etc. The process by which
this is done should be written down as a standard operating procedure (SOP). Once
methods have been validated or verified, they should be formally authorized for
*UNODC Laboratory and Scientific Section has published a series of manuals on recommended
methods for testing major drugs of abuse, they are published under the symbols ST/NAR. The whole
series or individual numbers are provided under request.

routine use in the laboratory by the responsible person, for example the laboratory
manager [2].
A “Method Authorization Form” or similar document specified in the quality manual
records the details of the method and the data on which the evaluation of the method
is based, including the following:
T

itle of the method
A

nalyte(s)
S

ample matrix
S

cientific basis of the method
V

alidation study data (accuracy, precision, selectivity, range, LOD etc.)
N

ame and position of the authorizing person
D

ate
Note that the SOPs for validating or verifying a method, in common with all SOPs
in the laboratory quality manual, should also be authorized by the laboratory
manager.
Once they have been established, it is essential that all SOPs are followed exactly.
If variations are made, the variations must be documented. Any significant variations
require that the method be revalidated for these new conditions. For all SOPs the
last approved version should be used.
Laboratory documentation for a quality system is complex in nature, and therefore
laboratories must have an appropriate document control procedure as recommended
in the “Guidance for the Implementation of a Quality Management System in Drug
Testing Laboratories” manual [3].
Systems proposed in the literature for the validation process may vary in several
respects from these guidelines because validation is necessarily tied to the intended
application. One of the benefits of these guidelines is that they have been tailored
to the qualitative and quantitative analysis of controlled drug substances, either in
seized materials or in biological specimens.
2.2 Evolution of a new method
Schematics for the evolution of a new method are provided in the ISO standards
and other publications [4,5,6]. The following scheme is generally applicable.

Validation and verification of analytical method 7
1. Identify requirements
2. Select candidate method (depends
on: availability of equipment and
facilities, staff expertise and require-
ments for staff training, regulatory
requirements)
3. Develop method
4. Identify the type of method
(specific requirements depend on
whether it is a qualitative or quantita-
tive method and the techniques
involved)
5. Produce validation documentation
6. Write user instructions
(Method SOP)
7. Obtain management authorization
8. Perform quality control to monitor
compliance with acceptance criteria for
end purpose (see step 1)
9. Review method and propose changes
10. Obtain management authorization
Establishing end purpose
Literature search for existing method; or
Identification of a similar method; or
Novel approach; or
Recommendation of colleagues; or
Recommendation of UNODC or other
authoritative organization
Preliminary assessment to establish if it
is capable of meeting the requirements
(See part 2.4)
Writing up experimental/validation
work (See part 2.6)
(See ST/NAR/25)
(See part 2.1)
Using traceable standards, blanks,
spiked samples, control charts, etc. and
external proficiency testing programmes
Revalidating as appropriate
Drafting revisions to SOP’s
Updating SOPs
Step Involves….
PRELIMINARY STEPS
METHOD VALIDATION
METHOD PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND REVIEW

2.3 Preliminary steps
The central issue to be tackled before developing a new method is to establish the
purpose for which the results will be used. This will then define acceptance criteria
for the performance of the method and may well define or restrict the choice of
techniques. To give an example, a method for the quantitative analysis of controlled
drugs in seized materials will have certain minimum requirements with respect to
accuracy and precision, specificity, etc., and these requirements must be satisfied
before the method can be accepted for routine use. As another example, a method
for the analysis of low concentrations of drug metabolites in biological specimens
may require the use of techniques with the highest sensitivity and selectivity, which
may only be satisfied by gas chromatography or liquid chromatography in combina-
tion with mass spectrometry.
It is important in terms of the laboratory’s human and financial resources to avoid
unnecessary over-specification of the requirements for which the results will be used
since this might lead to prolonged analysis times, increased costs and redundant
information.
2.4 Method validation
Useful protocols for method validation in the literature have derived, amongst others,
from the Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Code of Federal Regulations, Food
and Drug Administration, National Drug Administration, the United States Pharma-
copoeia Convention, the American Public Health Association and the International
Conference on Harmonization [2]. Additionally, the Scientific Working Group for
the Analysis of Seized Drugs (SWGDRUG), ENFSI, IUPAC and Eurachem/CITAC
have published detailed series of recommendations [5].
Methods can be classified in a number of ways [7], but in the present instance an
important distinction should always be made between qualitative and quantitative
methods.
Qualitative methods for drugs testing require the following set of validation para
meters to be determined:
s

pecificity/selectivity
l

imit of detection (LOD)
p

recision (within the laboratory repeatability and/or within the laboratory
reproducibility conditions)
s

tability

For those qualitative methods with a pre-defined threshold concentration for report-
ing results, the following three additional parameters should be determined:
l

inearity
a

ccuracy (bias) (under within laboratory repeatability and/or within labora-
tory reproducibility conditions) at the threshold concentration
p

recision (under within laboratory repeatability and/or within laboratory
reproducibility conditions) at the threshold concentration
Quantitative methods for drugs testing require the following set of validation
para
s

pecificity/selectivity
l

p

recision (under within laboratory repeatability and/or within laboratory
l

inearity and working range
a

ccuracy (bias) (under within laboratory repeatability and within laboratory
r

ecovery
u

ncertainty of measurement
s

tability
Additional parameters to be determined which are desirable but not essential include
lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ), ruggedness and robustness. For qualitative and
quantitative methods that are to be used by more than one laboratory, each labora-
tory should verify the method, and the inter-laboratory precision and accuracy should
be determined.
2.5 Method verification
When a laboratory is implementing a method which has already been validated,
there is no need to revalidate the method fully, but its performance should be veri-
fied for the minimum set of parameters listed below. Usually, verification involves
determining fewer parameters and making fewer measurements for each parameter
than does validation. Results of verification may differ slightly from those obtained
during validation, but whether they are acceptable should be determined by the
purpose for which the method will be used.

Qualitative methods for drugs testing require the following set of verification para
s

pecificity/selectivity if sample matrix differs from that used in the method
development
l

p

recision (under repeatability or reproducibility conditions)
For those qualitative methods with a pre-defined threshold concentration for report-
ing results, the following additional parameter should be determined:
a

ccuracy (bias) at threshold concentration
p

recision at threshold concentration
Accuracy and precision should be determined at the threshold concentration.
Quantitative methods for drugs testing require the following set of verification
parameters to be determined:
s

pecificity/selectivity and LOD if sample matrix differs from that used in
method development
a

ccuracy (bias) (under repeatability or reproducibility conditions)
p

recision (under repeatability or reproducibility conditions)
2.6 Validation/verification parameters
Specificity (Selectivity)
This parameter is concerned with the extent to which other substances interfere with
the identification and, where appropriate, quantification, of the analyte(s) of interest.
It is a measure of the ability of the method to identify/quantify the analytes in the
presence of other substances, either endogenous or exogenous, in a sample matrix
under the stated conditions of the method.
Specificity is determined by adding materials which might be encountered in samples.
For example, a specificity test of an immunological method for biological specimens
may use potentially cross-reacting substances; a specificity test of a spot test could
include potentially interfering substances which might inhibit or mask the colour
reaction; a chromatographic method for the determination of concentrations of drugs
of abuse in clinical samples should be free of interferences from the expected con-
comitantly administered therapeutic drugs. Specificity is concentration-dependent
and should be determined at the low end of the calibration range. The validation

should meet the purpose of the method and ensure that the effects of impurities,
cross-reacting substances, etc., which may be present in the matrix are known.
Limit of detection (LOD)
This is the lowest analyte concentration that can be detected and identified with a
given degree of certainty. The LOD is also defined as the lowest concentration that
can be distinguished from the background noise with a certain degree of confidence.
There are several methods of estimating the LOD, all of which depend on the
analysis of blank specimens and examination of the signal to noise ratio. A minimum
requirement for signal to noise of 3 is widely accepted. The LOD is not a robust
or rugged parameter and can be affected by minor changes in the analytical system
(e.g. temperature, purity of reagents, matrix effects, instrumental conditions). It is
therefore important that this parameter is always verified by laboratories adopting
previously validated methods.
Precision (under Repeatability and/or Reproducibility conditions)
Precision is a measure of the closeness of the analytical results obtained from a
series of replicate measurements of the same measure under the conditions of the
method. It reflects the random errors which occur in a method.
Two commonly accepted sets of conditions under which precision is measured are
repeatable and reproducible conditions.
Repeatability conditions occur when the same analyst analyses samples on the same
day with the same instrument (e.g. gas chromatograph) or materials (e.g. spot test
reagents) in the same laboratory. Any variation from these conditions (e.g. different
analysts, different days, different instruments, different laboratories) represent repro-
ducibility conditions. Precision is usually measured as the coefficient of variation
or relative standard deviation of analytical results obtained from independently pre-
pared quality control standards. Precision is concentration dependent and should be
measured at different concentrations within the working range, typically at the lower,
mid and upper parts. Acceptable precision at the lower concentrations is 20%. At
higher concentrations better precision would be expected. These acceptance criteria
may be widened in some instances, for example the analysis of autopsy samples,
where matrix effects may be significant.
Linearity and working range
Traditionally, methods are described as linear when there is a directly proportional
relationship between the method response and concentration of the analyte in the
matrix over the range of analyte concentrations of interest (working range). The
working range is predefined by the purpose of the method and may reflect only a

part of the full linear range. Acceptance criteria usually involve a Goodness of Fit
test. A high correlation coefficient (r) of 0.99 is often used as criterion of linearity.
However, this is not sufficient to prove that a linear relationship exists, and a method
with a coefficient of determination of less than 0.99 may still be fit for purpose.
These parameters are not applicable to qualitative methods unless there is a threshold
concentration for reporting results.
Accuracy (bias)
This is a measure of the difference between the expectation of the test result and
the accepted reference value due to systematic method and laboratory error. It is
usually expressed as a percentage. Accuracy and precision together determine the
total error of the analysis. Accuracy is ideally determined using Certified Refer-
ence Materials (CRMs), if available, reference methods, collaborative studies or
by
comparison with other methods [4].
In practice, CRMs are rarely available for drugs of abuse. For drugs of abuse in
biological fluids there are the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
CRMs but these do not cover a large menu of substances. As an alternative, reference
standards from an authoritative organization such as UNODC, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) or reputable commercial provider can be used.
It is common to estimate accuracy by analysing samples spiked at three different
concentrations (low, medium, high) covering the working range. The concentra-
tions of these standards should be different from those used for preparing the
calibration curves and they should be prepared from a different stock standard
solution.
Acceptability criteria for accuracy mirror those for precision.
Recovery
The recovery of an analyte in an assay is the detector response obtained from an
amount of the analyte added to and extracted from the matrix, compared to the
detector response for the true concentration of the pure authentic standard (seized
materials). It may also be understood as the percentage of the drug, metabolite, or
internal standard originally in the specimen that reaches the end of the procedure.
In the case of biological specimens, blanks of the biological matrix once the final
extracts have been obtained may be spiked with the true concentration of the pure
authentic standard and then analysed. Recovery experiments should be performed
by comparing the analytical results for extracted samples at three concentrations
(typically those corresponding to control samples used to evaluate a method’s preci-
sion and accuracy). Recovery of the analyte need not to be 100%, but the extent of
recovery (of the analyte and the internal standard) should be consistent (for all
concentrations tested), precise and reproducible (better than 20%)

Uncertainty of measurement [8, 9, 10]
Testing laboratories should have and apply procedures for estimating uncertainty
of measurement [1]. Considering uncertainty provides assurance that results and

conclusions from methods and analytical schemes are fit for purpose [11].
Metrologically, uncertainty is defined as a parameter associated with the result of meas-
urement that characterises the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed
to the measurand. (Measurand: Particular quantity subject to measurement.)
In more practical terms, uncertainty can be defined as a probability or level of
confidence. Any measurement we make will have some uncertainty associated with
it and the uncertainty interval which we quote will be the range within which the
true value lies at a certain level of confidence. Typically we use a 95% confidence
interval [12].
Understanding of uncertainty is fundamental to the interpretation and reporting of
results[11]. The laboratory shall at least attempt to identify all the components of
uncertainty and make a reasonable estimation, and shall ensure that the form of
reporting of the result does not give a wrong impression of the uncertainty.
Uncertainty of measurement comprises, in general, many components. The uncer-
tainty is calculated by estimating the errors associated with the various stages of
the analysis, e.g. pre-analytical effects, homogenization, weighing, pipetting, injec-
tion, extraction, derivatisation, recovery, calibration curves. Validation data e.g. accu-
racy and precision under, repeatability/reproducibility conditions already account for
many of these factors and should be used.
Estimates of overall uncertainty at the 95% confidence level can be calculated using
the following formula:
where u1,
u2
etc are the individual component uncertainties.
Individual component uncertainties that are less than 20% of the highest component
uncertainty have little impact on the overall uncertainty and can be omitted from
the calculation.
Stability
The validation of the method should demonstrate the extent to which the analytes are
stable during the whole analytical procedure, including storage before and after analy-
sis. In general, this is carried out by comparing freshly prepared standards of known
concentration with similar standards retained for different periods of time and stored
under various conditions. See reference [13] and further references therein.

2.7 Method performance monitoring and review
After a method has been validated or verified, and implemented, there is a continu-
ing need within any quality assurance system to monitor that the method is still
performing within its specifications. This process of monitoring involves on-going
quality control of the method with blanks, controls and calibrators, and testing of
the components of the system (this is sometimes referred to as system suitability
testing)[14], for example, column performance in terms of resolution and peak
shape, detector response and reagent specifications. Clear control limits (e.g. the
acceptable variability in detector response) should be specified for the method,
together with the corrective actions which should follow if these are exceeded,
including recalibration, reverification or revalidation of the method.
2.8
Inter-laboratory collaborative exercises/
proficiency tests
These studies are essential to establish the reliability and compatibility of data that
need to be shared. Collaborative exercises can be used as an integral part of method
validation to estimate accuracy and precision under reproducibility conditions and to
determine ruggedness. Some of these exercises require that the same method is used
at each location. Collaborative exercises and proficiency testing schemes can be used
to monitor and compare a laboratory’s performance against that of other laboratories
producing equivalent data. Several external quality control assurance schemes are
available for controlled drugs analysis including the UNODC ICE. See also ISO/IEC
Guide 43-1 and 43-2 for the accreditation of providers of PT schemes.

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(a)
Colour
tests
Specificity/
Selectivity
Analyse
the
following
samples
under
the
specified
test
conditions
and
note
the
colour
obtained
in
the
specified
time:
All
controlled
drugs
in
the
group(s)
of
interest.

All
compounds
from
natural
sources
or
from
a
synthetic
preparation
process
usually
found
to
be
present
in
seized
samples
containing
the
group
of
drugs
of
interest.
All
substances
commonly
found
as
diluents,
excipi-

ents,
etc.
in
the
matrix
in
which
the
drug
is
seized.
Examples
of
controlled
drugs
from
another

group(s).
A
range
of
real
or
simulated
samples
of
seized
mate-

rials
of
known
composition
for
matrix
effects.
The
number
of
test
samples
should
be
as
large
as
pos-
sible
within
practical
limits,
but
a
suggested
minimum
number
is
20.
No
significant
interference
(masking
of
the
test)
by
commonly-occurring
substances.
All
drugs
in
the
target
group
giving
negative
results

identified.
Fewer
than
5%
of
real
or
simulated
casework
samples

containing
the
analyte(s)
at
the
minimum
concentra-
tion
likely
to
be
found
in
casework
samples
encoun-
tered
by
the
laboratory
give
false
negatives.
The
rate
of
false
negative
should
be
lowered
to
a

minimum
(ideally
0%)
when
the
colour
test
is
used
as
a
crucial
screening
test
and
no
other
test
will
be
performed
following
a
negative
screening
test
Fewer
than
10%
of
real
or
simulated
casework
sam-

ples
which
do
not
contain
the
target
analytes
give
false
positives.
2.9
Practical
guidelines
for
validation
and
verification
of
methods
2.9.1
Seized
materials—qualitative
analysis

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(a)
Colour
tests
(Continued)
LOD
Analyse
pure
samples
of
a
selection
of
drugs
in
the
group
of
interest
at
decreasing
amounts
until
they
can
no
longer
be
detected.
Determine
the
effects
of
the
matrix
on
the
LOD
by
spiking
the
substance(s)
into
a
variety
of
commonly
occurring
matrices.
The
quantity
of
material
tested
should
be
the
amount
specified
in
the
analytical
method.
LOD
should
be
sufficiently
low
for
the
purpose
of
the
analysis.
Typically,
a
test
might
be
required
to
detect
the
analyte
at
the
minimum
concentration
likely
to
be
found
in
case-
work
samples
encountered
by
the
laboratory.
Precision
under
repeat-
ability
and
reproducibility
conditions
Analyse
at
least
10
replicate
samples
of
known
com-
position
at
an
amount
between
1.25
x
LOD
and
2
x
LOD.
No
more
than
one
sample
in
five
(20%)
should
give
a
false
negative
result.
(b)
Microcrystal
tests
Specificity/
Selectivity
Examine
each
drug
in
the
group(s)
of
interest
in
a
range
of
typical
matrices
under
the
specified
test
conditions,
photograph
and
note
the
features
which
characterize
it
as
the
particular
drug
or
one
of
a
specified
group
of
drugs.
The
analytical
method
in
terms
of
specificity
and
selec-
tivity
should
be
fit
for
purpose
(i.e.
minimal
false
posi-
tive
rates
with
different
matrices
for
the
screening
of
controlled
substances)
2.9.1
Seized
analysis
(Continued)

LOD
Analyse
samples
of
each
specific
drug
in
the
class(es)
of
interest
in
a
variety
of
commonly
occurring
matrices
at
a
series
of
dilutions
to
establish
the
minimum
con-
centration
at
which
the
drug
can
still
be
detected
with
confidence.
LOD
should
be
sufficiently
low
for
the
purpose
of
the
analysis.
Typically,
a
test
might
be
required
to
detect
the
analyte
at
the
minimum
concentration
likely
to
be
found
in
casework
samples
encountered
by
the
laboratory.
Precision
under
repeat-
ability
and
reproducibility
conditions
Analyse
at
least
10
replicate
samples
of
known
com-
position
at
an
amount
between
1.25
x
LOD
and
2
x
LOD.
No
more
than
one
sample
in
five
(20%)
should
give
a
false
negative
result.
(c)
Spectroscopic
techniques
(UV,
IR,
NMR,
IMS,
MS)
Specificity/
Selectivity
Analyse
under
the
specified
test
conditions
and
identify
the
characteristic
absorptions,
resonances
or
ions
for:
Samples
of
all
controlled
drugs
in
the
group(s)

class(es)
of
interest
Samples
of
all
compounds
from
natural
sources
or

from
a
synthetic
preparation
process
usually
found
to
be
present
in
seized
samples
containing
the
class
of
drugs
of
interest.
All
substances
commonly
found
in
the
matrix
in
which

the
drug
is
seized,
as
diluents,
excipients,
etc.
Examples
of
controlled
drugs
from
other
classes.

The
analytical
method
in
terms
of
specificity
and
selec-
tivity
should
be
fit
for
purpose
(i.e.
minimal
false
posi-
tive
rates
with
different
matrices
for
the
screening
of
controlled
substances)

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(c)
Spectroscopic
techniques
(Continued)
A
range
of
samples
of
seized
materials
of
known

composition
for
matrix
effects.
The
number
of
test
samples
should
be
as
large
as
pos-
sible
within
practical
limits,
but
a
suggested
minimum
number
is
20.
LOD
Analyse
samples
of
a
selection
of
drugs
in
the
group(s)
of
interest
in
a
variety
of
commonly
occurring
matrices
at
a
range
of
dilutions
to
establish
the
minimum
con-
centration
at
which
the
drugs
can
still
be
detected
with
confidence.
LOD
should
be
sufficiently
low
for
the
purpose
of
the
analysis.
Typically,
a
test
might
be
required
to
detect
the
analyte
at
the
minimum
concentration
likely
to
be
found
in
casework
samples
encountered
by
the
laboratory.
Precision
under
repeat-
ability
and
reproducibility
conditions
Analyse
at
least
10
replicate
samples
of
known
com-
position
at
an
amount
between
1.25
x
LOD
and
2
x
LOD.
No
more
than
one
sample
in
five
(20%)
should
give
a
false
negative
result.
(d)
Thin
layer
chromatography
Specificity/
Selectivity
Taking
care
not
to
overload
the
plate,
analyse
under
the
specified
test
conditions,
and
note
the
Rf
values
and
the
colour
obtained
in
the
specified
time
for:
The
analytical
method
in
terms
of
specificity
and
selec-
tivity
should
be
fit
for
purpose
(i.e.
minimal
false
posi-
tive
rates
with
different
matrices
for
the
screening
of
controlled
substances)
2.9.1
Seized
analysis
(Continued)

All
controlled
drugs
in
the
group(s)
of
interest.

All
compounds
from
natural
sources
or
from
a
syn-

thetic
preparation
process
usually
found
to
be
present
in
seized
samples
containing
the
group
of
drugs
of
interest.
All
substances
commonly
found
in
the
matrix
in
which

the
drug
is
seized,
such
as
diluents,
excipients,
etc.
Examples
of
controlled
drugs
from
other
group(s).

Analyse
mixtures
of
substances
of
similar
Rf
and

confirm
which
can
be
identified
in
the
presence
of
the
others.
LOD
Analyse
samples
of
a
selection
of
drugs
in
the
group(s)
of
interest
in
a
variety
of
commonly
occurring
matrices
at
a
range
of
dilutions
to
establish
the
minimum
con-
centration
at
which
the
drugs
can
still
be
detected
with
confidence.
LOD
should
be
sufficiently
low
for
the
purpose
of
the
analysis.
Typically,
a
test
might
be
required
to
detect
the
analyte
at
the
minimum
concentration
likely
to
be
found
in
casework
samples
encountered
by
the
laboratory.
Precision
under
repeat-
ability
and
reproducibility
conditions
Determine
the
intra-
and
inter-laboratory
variation
in
relative
Rf
values
obtained
from
comparison
of
the
sam-
ple
Rf
value
with
the
Rf
value
from
authentic
standards
run
in
parallel
with
the
samples.
No
more
than
one
sample
in
five
(20%)
should
give
a
false
negative
result.

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(e)
GC/HPLC/Capillary
electrophoresis
Specificity/
Selectivity
Analyse
under
the
specified
test
conditions,
and
note
the
retention
times
obtained
for:
All
controlled
drugs
in
the
group(s)
of
interest.

All
compounds
from
natural
sources
or
from
a
syn-

thetic
preparation
process
usually
found
to
be
present
in
seized
samples
containing
the
group
of
drugs
of
interest.
All
substances
commonly
found
in
the
matrix
in

which
the
drug
is
seized,
such
as
diluents,
excipients,
etc.
Examples
of
controlled
drugs
from
other
group(s).

Analyse
mixtures
of
substances
of
similar
retention
times
and
confirm
which
can
be
identified
in
the
pres-
ence
of
the
others.
The
analytical
method
in
terms
of
specificity
and
selec-
tivity
should
be
fit
for
purpose
(i.e.
minimal
false
posi-
tive
rates
with
different
matrices
for
the
screening
of
controlled
substances)
LOD
Analyse
samples
of
each
specific
drug
in
the
class(es)
of
interest
in
a
variety
of
commonly
occurring
matrices
at
a
series
of
dilutions
to
establish
the
minimum
con-
centration
at
which
the
drug
can
still
be
detected
with
confidence
(signal
to
noise
ratio
of
at
least
3:1).
LOD
should
be
sufficiently
low
for
the
purpose
of
the
analysis.
Typically,
a
test
might
be
required
to
detect
the
analyte
at
the
minimum
concentration
likely
to
be
found
in
casework
samples
encountered
by
the
laboratory.
2.9.1
Seized
analysis
(Continued)

Precision
under
repeat-
ability
and
reproducibility
conditions
Analyse
at
least
10
replicate
samples
of
known
com-
position
at
an
amount
between
1.25
x
LOD
and
2
x
LOD.
Determine
the
variation
(RSD)
[15]
in
retention
times
relative
to
the
internal
standard
No
more
than
one
sample
in
five
(20%)
should
give
a
false
negative
result.
RSD
should
be
better
than
±2%
(f)
Immunoassay
(semi-quantitative)
Specificity/
Selectivity
Analyse
the
following
using
the
specified
extraction/
pre-treatment
process:
All
controlled
drugs
in
the
group(s)
of
interest.

All
compounds
from
natural
sources
or
from
a
syn-

thetic
preparation
process
usually
found
to
be
present
in
seized
samples
containing
the
group
of
drugs
of
interest.
All
substances
commonly
found
as
diluents,
excipi-

ents,
etc.
in
the
matrix
in
which
the
drug
is
seized.
Examples
of
controlled
drugs
from
other
classes.

A
range
of
real
or
simulated
samples
of
seized
mate-

rials
of
known
composition
for
matrix
effects.
The
number
of
test
samples
should
be
as
large
as
pos-
sible
within
practical
limits,
but
a
suggested
minimum
number
is
20.
The
immunoassay
specifications
in
terms
of
specificity
and
selectivity
should
be
fit
for
purpose
(i.e.
minimal
false
positive
rates
with
different
matrices
for
the
screen-
ing
of
controlled
substances).

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(f)
Immunoassay
(semi-quantitative)
(Continued)
LOD
Analyse
samples
of
a
selection
of
drugs
in
the
class
of
interest
in
a
variety
of
commonly
occurring
matrices
at
a
range
of
dilutions
to
establish
the
minimum
concen-
tration
at
which
the
drugs
can
still
be
detected
with
confidence.
LOD
should
be
sufficiently
low
for
the
purpose
of
the
analysis.
Typically,
a
test
might
be
required
to
detect
the
analyte
at
the
minimum
concentration
likely
to
be
found
in
casework
samples
encountered
by
the
laboratory.
Precision
under
repeat-
ability
and
reproducibility
conditions
Determine
precision
under
repeatability
conditions
by
analysing
at
least
10
replicate
samples
of
known
com-
position
at
an
amount
between
1.25
and
2x
cut-off
concentration.
No
more
than
one
sample
in
five
(20%)
should
give
a
false
negative
result.
Note:
In
GC-MS,
the
mass
spectrometer
can
be
operated
in
either
the
repetitive
full
scan
mode
or
the
Selected
Ion
Monitoring
(SIM)
mode.
In
LC-MS-MS,
the
mass
spectrometer
can
be
operated
in
either
the
repetitive
full
scan
mode
or
in
the
multiple
reaction
monitoring
(MRM)
mode.
2.9.1
Seized
analysis
(Continued)

In the repetitive full scan mode, the mass spectrum is used in conjunction with the
retention time or relative retention time to identify and confirm drug(s) present. For
identification purposes (relates to specificity and selectivity, accuracy) the retention
time and mass spectrum of each drug in the sample are compared with those of an
authentic standard analysed under identical conditions, usually in the same batch or
within the same day. Alternatively, the mass spectrum can be compared with a library
spectrum of the standard using a library search routine. The retention time of the
suspected drug should agree closely with that of the standard if available (within a
window of approximately ±2% of the retention time) and the mass spectrum should
have a good visual match to that of the standard or should achieve a fit factor of
900 or more in the library search (on a scale in which a perfect fit achieves a fit
factor of 1,000).
When used in the SIM/MRM mode, at least three ions/transitions are selected for
each target analyte, typically including the base peak and molecular ion plus one
other diagnostic ion. For identification purposes, the areas of peaks in the selected
ion chromatograms at the analyte retention time should have relative intensities
which match those of a standard analysed in the same batch under identical condi-
tions, with an allowable error of approximately ±20%. Similar criteria may be used
for computer-generated mass chromatograms obtained from data acquired in the
repetitive full scan mode, if this mode provides adequate sensitivity, and a sufficient
number (more than 12) of mass spectra across the chromatographic peak to permit
peak areas to be determined with reasonable accuracy. If the mass spectrometer is
operated in the chemical ionization mode, there may only be one ion present and
identification of the drug will have to be on the basis of the retention time and fact
that the ion is present.

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(a)
Spectroscopic
techniques
(UV,
IR,
NMR,
IMS,
MS)
Specificity/
Selectivity
As
for
qualitative
analysis
As
for
qualitative
analysis
LOQ
Analyse
samples
of
each
specific
drug
in
the
class(es)
of
interest
in
a
variety
of
commonly
occurring
matrices
at
a
series
of
dilu-
tions
to
establish
the
minimum
concentration
at
which
the
drug
can
still
be
quantified
with
confidence.
The
requirements
should
be
met
for
accu-
racy
and
precision.
Linearity
and
working
range*
Analyse
a
blank
sample
and
six
independently
prepared
blanks
containing
the
drug(s)
of
interest
at
six
different
concentrations
evenly
spaced
over
the
range
of
interest.
Working
range
should
be
fit
for
purpose
Accuracy
Blank
specimens
spiked
with
the
drug(s)
of
interest
at
three
different
levels
(high,
medium
and
low)
should
be
analysed
in
replicate
on
three
consecutive
days.
The
number
of
replicates
per
concentration
level
and
day
should
be
at
least
three.
The
difference
between
the
mean
result
and
the
expected
result
(see
part
2
F)
should
be
expressed
as
a
percentage.
All
results
should
fall
within
±20%
of
the
expected
value
at
the
lower
concentra-
tions
and
within
±15%
at
higher
concentrations.
Precision
Compare
the
results
obtained
for
each
spiked
blank
specimen
at
each
concentration
level
when
determining
accuracy
and
express
the
variation
in
terms
of
the
RSD
for
each
concentration.
The
RSD
should
be
better
than
20%
at
lower
concentration
and
better
than
15%
at
higher
concentration.
2.9.2
Seized
materials—quantitative
analysis

Recovery
(where
extraction
is
required)
Prepare
samples
of
the
target
analyte
at
three
different
concentra-
tions
in
a
typical
matrix.
Make
five
replicate
extracts
of
each
sample.
At
the
same
time
analyse
standard
solutions
of
the
target
analyte(s).
The
recovery
is
then
calculated
by
comparing
analyte
spectroscopic
responses,
e.g.
absorptions,
with
those
of
the
standards
Recovery
%
=
[A1/A2]
x
100
For
the
extracted
samples:
A1
=
response
of
analyte
A2
=
response
of
standard
Recovery
should
be
reproducible
to
within
±15%.
Note:
As
indicated
in
part
II
F,
the
abso-
lute
percentage
recovery
is
not
critical
as
long
as
it
is
reproducible
and
provides
adequate
LLOQ
Uncertainty
Estimate
the
errors
at
each
stage
of
the
analytical
process
using
the
data
from
the
validation
where
available
and
calculate
the
overall
uncertainty
(see
2.6.)
As
a
general
guideline,
uncertainty
should
be
in
the
region
of
±15%
at
LOQ;
±10%
mid-range
or
higher.
(b)
GC/HPLC/Capillary
electrophoresis
Specificity/
Selectivity
Αs
for
qualitative
analysis
Αs
for
qualitative
analysis
LOQ
Analyse,
once
each,
10
sample
blanks
extracted
from
a
typical
drug
matrix
each
containing
the
drug
at
concentrations
near
to
the
minimum
level
(close
to
LOD)
at
which
a
signal
is
just
observed
to
indicate
its
presence.
Express
the
LOQ
as
±3
or
±10s.d.
of
the
sample
blank
value
at
the
drug
position.
The
LOQ
should
be
fit
for
purpose
(i.e.
if
participating
in
an
external
quality
con-
trol,
it
should
fit
quality
objectives
applied)

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(b)
GC/HPLC/Capillary
electrophoresis
(Continued)
Linearity
and
working
range*
Analyse
a
blank
sample
and
six
independently
prepared
blanks
containing
the
drug(s)
of
interest
at
different
six
concentrations
evenly
spaced
covering
the
range
of
interest.
Working
range
should
be
fit
for
purpose.
Precision
under
repeatability
and
reproducibility
conditions
Analyse
10
independently
prepared
blank
samples
spiked
with
the
drug(s)
of
interest
at
each
of
six
concentrations
across
the
working
range
and
express
the
variation
in
terms
of
the
standard
deviation
at
each
concentration.
RSD
for
the
lower
controls
must
be
lower
than
20%
and
for
the
other
control
levels
better
than
15%.
Accuracy
Analyse
10
independently
prepared
blank
samples
spiked
with
the
drug(s)
of
interest
at
three
different
levels
(high,
medium
and
low)
and
express
the
difference
between
the
mean
result
and
the
expected
result
as
a
percentage
Errors
for
the
lower
controls
must
be
lower
than
20%
and
for
the
other
control
levels
better
than
15%.
Recovery
(where
extraction
is
required)
Prepare
samples
of
the
target
analyte
at
three
different
concentra-
tions
in
a
typical
matrix.
Make
five
replicate
extracts
of
each
sample.
To
each
extract
add
a
known
amount
of
internal
stand-
ard.
At
the
same
time
analyse
standard
solutions
of
the
target
analyte(s)
containing
the
same
amount
of
internal
standard.
The
recovery
is
then
calculated
by
comparing
the
ratio(s)
of
analyte
peak
areas
to
internal
standard
peak
area
(s)
for
the
extracted
and
unextracted
samples.
Recovery
%
=
([A1/A2]/[A3/A4])
x
100
Recovery
should
be
reproducible
to
within
±15%.
Note:
As
indicated
in
part
2
F,
the
abso-
lute
percentage
recovery
is
not
critical
as
long
as
it
is
reproducible
and
provides
adequate
LLOQ
2.9.2
Seized
materials—quantitative
analysis
(Continued)

For
the
extracted
samples:
A1
=
peak
area
of
analyte
A2
=
peak
area
of
internal
standard
For
the
standard
solutions:
A3
=
peak
area
of
analyte
A4
=
peak
area
of
internal
standard
Uncertainty
Estimate
the
errors
at
each
stage
of
the
analytical
process
using
the
data
from
the
validation
where
available
and
calculate
the
overall
uncertainty
(see
2.6).
As
a
general
guideline,
uncertainty
should
be
in
the
region
of
±15%
at
LOQ;
±10%
mid-range
or
higher.
Note:
In
GC-MS,
the
mass
spectrometer
can
be
operated
in
either
the
repetitive
full
scan
mode
or
the
Selected
Ion
Monitoring
(SIM)
mode.
In
LC-MS-MS,
the
mass
spectrometer
can
be
operated
in
either
the
repetitive
full
scan
mode
or
in
the
multiple
reaction
monitoring
(MRM)mode.

factor of 1,000).
number (more than twelve) of mass spectra across the chromatographic peak to
permit peak areas to be determined with reasonable accuracy. If the mass spectro
meter is operated in the chemical ionisation mode, there may only be one ion present
and identification of the drug will have to be on the basis of the retention time and
fact that the ion is present. For quantification purposes, one of the selected ions/
transitions is selected as the quantification ion/transition and the other ions/transi-
tions serve as qualifier ions to confirm the identity of the suspected drug. The
chromatograms produced for the quantification ion/transition are used in method
validation in a similar way to those obtained with other GC detectors such as the
flame ionization detector.

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(a)
Thin
layer
chromatography
Specificity/
Selectivity
Analyse
under
the
specified
test
conditions
and
note
the
Rf
values
for:
Standard
solutions
of
drugs
and/or
metabolites
in
the
group(s)
of
interest;

Blank
specimens
spiked
with
drugs
and/or
metabolites
in
the
group(s)
of

interest;
Standard
solutions
of
drugs
from
other
groups.

Analyse
a
blank
matrix
from
at
least
five
different
sources
and
verify
the
absence
of
interfering
substances
at
the
Rf
values
of
the
analyte(s)
of
interest.
If
drugs
or
other
substances
have
similar
Rf
values
to
any
of
the
target
analytes,
analyse
a
mixture
of
them
to
check
whether
they
can
be
resolved
from
the
target
analyte(s).
Verify
that
the
analytical
method
in
terms
of
specificity
and
selectivity
is
fit
for
purpose
(i.e.
minimal
false
positive
rates
with
different
matrices
for
the
screening
of

c
ontrolled
substances)
LOD
and
cut-off
value
Analyse
10
independent
randomized
replicates
of
blank
extracts
(from
a
typical
drug
matrix)
spiked
with
the
drug
of
interest
at
a
range
of
concentration
levels.
Establish
the
minimum
level
at
which
the
drug
is
consistently
detected.
If
there
is
a
defined
threshold
concentration
(cut-off),
the
performance
of
the
TLC
method
is
verified
by
running
control
samples
spiked
with
a
concentration
which
is
about
25%
higher
than
the
threshold
value.
LOD
should
be
sufficiently
low
for
the
purpose
of
the
analysis.
The
method
should
be
able
to
detect
all
target
analytes
at
the
cut-off
values.
2.9.3
Biological
specimens—qualitative
analysis

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(a)
Thin
layer
chromatography
(Continued)
Precision
under
repeatability
and
reproducibility
conditions
Determine
the
variability
(RSDi)
in
Rf
values
obtained
from
control
samples.
If
there
is
a
threshold
value,
the
RSD
should
be
determined
from
samples
spiked
with
a
concentration
which
is
about
25%
higher
than
the
threshold
value.
The
RSD
should
be
better
than
20%
(b)
GC/HPLC/Capillary
electrophoresis
Specificity/
Selectivity
Analyse
under
the
specified
test
conditions
and
note
the
retention
times
for:
Standard
solutions
of
drugs
and/or
metabolites
in
the
group(s)
of
interest;

Blank
specimens
spiked
with
drugs
and/or
metabolites
in
the
group(s)
of

interest;
Standard
solutions
of
drugs
from
other
groups.

Analyse
a
blank
matrix
from
at
least
five
different
sources
and
verify
the
absence
of
interfering
substances
at
the
retention
times
of
the
analyte(s)
of
interest.
If
drugs
or
other
substances
have
similar
retention
times
to
any
of
the
target
analytes,
analyse
a
mixture
of
them
to
check
whether
they
can
be
resolved
from
the
target
analyte(s).
Verify
the
absence
of
interfering
substances
at
the
retention
time
of
the
analyte
(s)
of
interest
and
of
the
internal
standard
(IS).
Verify
that
the
analytical
method
in
terms
of
specificity
and
selectivity
is
fit
for
purpose
(i.e.
minimal
false
positive
rates
with
different
matrices
for
the
screening
of
controlled
substances).
2.9.3
Biological
analysis
(Continued)

LOD
Analyse
samples
of
each
specific
drug
in
the
class(es)
of
interest
in
a
variety
of
commonly
occurring
matrices
at
a
series
of
dilutions
to
establish
the
minimum
concentration
at
which
the
drug
can
still
be
detected
with
confidence
(signal
to
noise
ratio
of
at
least
3:1).
LOD
should
be
sufficiently
low
for
the
purpose
of
the
analysis.
Typically,
a
test
might
be
required
to
detect
the
analyte
at
the
minimum
concentration
likely
to
be
found
in
specimens
encountered
by
the
laboratory.
Precision
under
repeatability
and
reproducibility
conditions
Analyse
at
least
10
replicate
samples
of
known
composition
at
an
amount
between
1.25
x
LOD
and
2
x
LOD.
Determine
the
variation
(RSD)
in
retention
times
relative
to
the
internal
standard.
No
more
than
one
sample
in
five
(20%)
should
give
a
false
negative
result.
RSD
should
be
better
than
±2%

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(c)
Immunoassay
(semi-quantitative)
Specificity/
Selectivity
Immunoassays
from
commercial
sources
already
provide
information
about
the
specificity
and
the
selectivity
of
the
method.
This
information
does
not
need
to
be
verified
if
the
immunoassay
is
used
only
for
its
intended
purpose.
The
utilization
of
the
immunoassay
with
biological
matrices
other
than
those
already
validated
by
the
manufacturer
e.g.
blood
rather
than
urine,
will
require
its
validation,
especially
for
matrix
effects.
To
validate
an
immunoassay,
analyse
under
the
specified
test
conditions:
Samples
spiked
with
controlled
drugs
and/or
metabolites
in
the
group(s)
of
interest;

Examples
of
controlled
drugs
from
other
classes;

Substances
commonly
found
in
the
matrix
in
which
the
drug
is
analyzed;

At
least
20
specimens
known
to
be
positive;

At
least
20
specimens
known
to
be
negative
from
different
individuals

There
should
be
no
significant
cross-
reactivity
with
other
drugs
or
substances.
LOD
Immunoassays
from
commercial
sources
usually
provide
information
about
the
LOD.
If
validation
is
necessary,
e.g.
to
analyse
for
a
new
amphetamine
derivative
in
the
same
matrix
or
to
test
for
drugs
in
a
different
matrix,
analyse
10
independent
randomised
replicates
of
blank
specimens
spiked
with
the
drug
of
interest
at
a
range
of
concentration
levels
to
determine
the
minimum
concentration
which
can
be
reliably
detected
Should
be
substantially
lower
than
the
cut-off
concentration
so
that
both
negative
and
positive
samples
can
be
reliably
classified.
2.9.3
Biological
analysis
(Continued)

Precision
under
repeatability
and
reproducibility
conditions.
For
most
immunoassays
the
decision
to
report
the
presence
or
absence
of
a
given
substance
should
not
be
based
on
LOD
but
on
a
cut-off
concentration
applied
as
the
criterion
for
a
positive.
The
performance
of
an
immunoassay
with
a
defined
threshold
concentration
(cut-
off)
should
be
verified
by
running
control
samples
in
analytical
batches
spiked
with
concentrations
close
to
the
cut-off
(±25%
of
the
cut-off
concentration).
Intra-day
precision
(repeatability)
can
be
determined
by
running
control
samples
which
have
been
spiked
with
a
concentration
of
analyte
which
is
about
25%
higher
than
the
threshold
value.
The
RSD
of
these
data
should
be
calculated.
Inter-day
precision
(intermediate
precision)
can
be
obtained
by
accumulating
data
of
control
samples,
spiked
with
a
concentration
of
analyte
which
is
about
25%
higher
than
the
threshold
value,
which
should
be
run
routinely
in
every
analytical
batch.
The
RSD
of
these
data
should
be
calculated.
For
repeatability
(intra-day
precision)
and
intermediate
(inter-day
precision)
the
RSD
vallues
should
be
better
than
±20%.
Spiked
control
samples
must
be
correctly
classified
by
the
immuno
a
ssay
as
being
either
higher
or
lower
than
the
cut-off
level.
Note:
In
GC-MS,
the
mass
spectrometer
can
be
operated
in
either
the
repetitive
full
scan
mode
or
the
Selected
Ion
Monitoring
(SIM)
mode.
In
LC-MS-MS,
the
mass
spectrometer
can
be
operated
in
either
the
repetitive
full
scan
mode
or
in
the
multiple
reaction
monitoring
(MRM)
mode.

factor of 1,000).
tions, with an allowable error of approximately ±20%.
Similar criteria may be used for computer-generated mass chromatograms obtained
from data acquired in the repetitive full scan mode, if this mode provides adequate
sensitivity, and a sufficient number (more than twelve) of mass spectra across the
chromatographic peak to permit peak areas to be determined with reasonable accu-
racy. If the mass spectrometer is operated in the chemical ionization mode, there
may only be one ion present and identification of the drug will have to be on the
basis of the retention time and fact that the ion is present.

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(a)
GC/HPLC/Capillary
electrophoresis
Specificity/
Selectivity
Analyse
under
the
specified
test
conditions
and
note
the
reten-
tion
times
for:
Standard
solutions
of
drugs
and/or
metabolites
in
the
group(s)

of
interest;
Blank
specimens
spiked
with
drugs
and/or
metabolites
in
the

group(s)
of
interest;
Standard
solutions
of
drugs
from
other
groups;

Analyse
a
blank
matrix
from
at
least
10
different
sources
and
verify
the
absence
of
interfering
substances
at
the
retention
times
of
the
analyte(s)
of
interest.
If
drugs
or
other
substances
have
similar
retention
times
to
any
of
the
target
analytes,
analyse
a
mixture
of
them
to
check
whether
they
can
be
resolved
from
the
target
analyte(s).
Verify
the
absence
of
any
significant
level
of
interfering
substances
at
the
retention
time
of
the
analyte
(s)
of
interest
and
of
the
internal
standard
(IS).
A
significant
level
would
be
equivalent
to
or
greater
than
the
LOQ.
2.9.4
Biological
specimens—quantitative
analysis

Parameter
Validation
requirements
Acceptance
criteria
(a)
GC/HPLC/Capillary
electrophoresis
(Continued)
Linearity
and
working
range*
Analyse
a
blank
sample
containing
the
drug(s)
of
interest
at
five
different
concentrations
covering
the
range
of
interest.
Concentra-
tions
must
be
evenly
spaced.
The
linearity
check
should
confirm
that
the
method
is
linear
e.g.
the
regression
coeffi-
cient
should
be
better
than
0.99
over
the
working
range
and
the
working
range
should
be
fit
for
purpose.
At
least
six
replicate
samples
should
be
analysed
at
each
concentra-
tion
level
in
order
to
identify
and
exclude
any
outlying
values.
The
Grub’s
or
the
Dixon’s
tests
are
suitable
for
that
purpose.
Plot
a
calibration
curve
using
the
mean
values
for
each
concentra-
tion
and
check
for
linearity
e.g.
using
linear
regression
analysis,
to
obtain
the
regression
coefficient
r
2
.
Parameters
like
the
limit
of
detection
(LOD)
and
the
limit
of
quanti-
fication
(LOQ)
may
be
estimated
from
linearity
studies.
Estimation
can
be
performed
by
multiplying
three
(for
LOD)
or
10
times
(LOQ)
the
ratio
between
the
standard
deviation
observed
for
the
lowest
cali-
bration
level
and
the
slope
of
the
lineal
regression.
LOD
and
LOQ
should
be
well
below
the
lowest
calibration
point.
Accuracy
Blank
specimens
spiked
with
the
drug(s)
of
interest
at
three
differ-
ent
levels
(high,
medium
and
low)
should
be
analysed
in
replicate
on
three
consecutive
days.
The
number
of
replicates
per
concentra-
tion
level
and
day
should
be
at
least
three.
The
difference
between
the
mean
result
and
the
expected
result
(see
part
2
F)
should
be
expressed
as
a
percentage.
All
results
should
fall
within
±20%
of
the
expected
value
at
the
lower
concentrations
and
within
±15%
at
higher
concentrations.
2.9.4
Biological
specimens—quantitative
analysis
(Continued)

Precision
under
reproducibility
conditions
Compare
the
results
obtained
for
each
spiked
blank
specimen
at
each
concentration
level
when
determining
accuracy
and
express
the
variation
in
terms
of
the
RSD
for
each
concentration.
The
RSD
should
be
better
than
20%
at
lower
concentrations
and
better
than
15%
at
higher
concentrations.
Recovery
(where
extraction
is
required)
Prepare
specimens
of
the
target
analyte
at
three
different
concentra-
tions
in
a
blank
matrix.
Make
five
replicate
extracts
of
each
speci-
men.
To
each
extract
add
a
known
amount
of
internal
standard.
At
the
same
time
analyse
standard
solutions
of
the
target
analyte(s)
containing
the
same
amount
of
internal
standard.
(Note:
if
there
are
known
matrix
effects,
then
extracts
of
the
equivalent
amount
of
a
blank
matrix
should
be
made
and
added
to
the
standard
solutions
along
with
the
internal
standard).
The
recovery
is
then
calculated
by
comparing
the
ratio(s)
of
analyte
peak
areas
to
internal
standard
peak
area
(s)
for
the
extracted
and
unextracted
samples.
Recovery
%
=
([A1/A2]/[A3/A4])
x
100
For
the
extracted
samples:
A1
=
peak
area
of
analyte
A2
=
peak
area
of
internal
standard
For
the
standard
solutions:
A3
=
peak
area
of
analyte
A4
=
peak
area
of
internal
standard
Recovery
should
be
reproducible
to
within
±15%.
Note:
As
indicated
in
part
2
F,
the
absolute
percentage
recovery
is
not
critical
as
long
as
it
is
reproducible
and
provides
adequate
LLOQ.
Uncertainty
Estimate
the
errors
at
each
stage
of
the
analytical
process
using
the
data
from
the
validation
where
available
and
calculate
the
over-
all
uncertainty
(see
part
2.6.)
As
a
general
guideline,
uncertainty
should
be
in
the
region
of
±25%
at
LOQ;
±20%
mid-range
or
higher.
Note:
In
GC-MS,
the
mass
spectrometer
can
be
operated
in
either
the
repetitive
full
scan
mode
or
the
Selected
Ion
Monitoring
(SIM)
mode.
In
LC-MS-MS,
the
mass
spectrometer
can
be
operated
in
either
the
repetitive
full
scan
mode
or
in
the
multiple
reaction
monitoring
(MRM)
mode.

factor of 1,000).
number (more than twelve) of mass spectra across the chromatographic peak to
permit peak areas to be determined with reasonable accuracy. If the mass spectro
meter is operated in the chemical ionization mode, there may only be one ion present
and identification of the drug will have to be on the basis of the retention time and
fact that the ion is present.
For quantification purposes, one of the selected ions/transitions is selected as the
quantification ion/transition and the other ions/transitions serve as qualifier ions to
confirm the identity of the suspected drug. The chromatograms produced for the
quantification ion/transition are used in method validation in a similar way to those
obtained with other GC detectors such as the flame ionization detector.

39
3.
Calibration/performance verification
of instruments and equipment
3.1 Introduction
The performance of laboratory instruments and equipment may change with time,
either in the short term owing to fluctuations in the environment or, in the long
term, owing to ageing of the mechanical, optical or electronic components. Slow
changes may not be obvious and can lead to errors in the results obtained. In addi-
tion, performance can be affected by repairs or replacement of modules or compo-
nents. It is also possible that new equipment has not been tested or checked against
specifications before delivery.
Within a laboratory which maintains a comprehensive quality system, all aspects of
analytical work are controlled, and these potential instrumental errors are controlled
by carrying out regular preventative maintenance and calibration procedures. The
way in which the performance of instruments and equipment is to be monitored
(the terms performance verification [4] or performance qualification [16] are used
to denote this), and the frequency of the calibration checks (calibration interval),
should be stipulated in Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
Performance verification should be based on tests which are not specific to particular
methods and which use traceable calibrators and standards, thus allowing equipment
to be compared between laboratories. Performance verification is not specifically
related to either screening or confirmatory methods. The calibration of instruments
and equipment (e.g., wavelength calibration of an IR spectrometer, mass calibration
of a GCMS) is independent of the type of sample.
Two conceptual approaches to the calibration process exist:
T

he traditional approach, where all instruments and equipment are calibrated
and
T

he approach where calibration applies only to instruments providing physical
measurements, and where the result is a direct measurement of a traceable
physical parameter. For example, balances, spectrometers, thermometers, cen-
trifuges and chronometers may be calibrated because there are traceable

standards to determine the uncertainty of the measurements. In all other cases,
only performance verification of the equipment/instruments can be done in
the laboratory; without an estimation of uncertainty there is no calibration.
It is up to the laboratory to decide which approach to follow.
3.2 Metrological requirements
The laboratory should be furnished with all items of sampling measurement and
test equipment devices for the correct performance of tests and calibrations. Prior
to use, equipment should also be checked and calibrated that meets laboratories’
requirements and complies with standard specifications. The laboratory should have
an established programme and procedure of the calibration of its equipment [17].
Some instrument and equipment suppliers can provide calibration certificates as part
of a routine maintenance contract. Current requirements of quality assurance and good
laboratory practice are that records should be kept in the log-book of each instrument
of all calibration procedures and checks, and of remedial action if a check indicates
that an instrument is out of calibration, as summarized in the table below.
Checklist of information to be kept in the instrument maintenance
log-book [4]
Name of the equipment
Name of the manufacturer, model and/or type
Serial number
Date of receipt of equipment in laboratory
Condition when received (new, used)
Details of checks made for compliance with relevant calibration or test
standard specification
Date equipment was placed in service by the laboratory
Current location in the laboratory, if appropriate
Copy of the manufacturer’s operating instruction(s)
Performance criteria defined according to the requirements of the type of
analyses to be carried out with this instrument
Details of maintenance carried out and records of the subsequent
performance check
History of any damage, malfunction, modification or repair and records
of the subsequent performance check
Frequency of checking the performance criteria

Calibration/performance verification of instruments and equipment 41
3.3
Procedures for calibration/performance
verification of instruments and equipment
Calibration procedures for apparatus used in analytical chemistry are often supplied
by the manufacturer, together with information on routine maintenance and the
frequency at which these are carried out. The following paragraphs provide guide-
lines for writing and performing standard calibration procedures for commonly used
instruments and equipment [13,15].
Autopipettes
Apart from calibration, routine maintenance requires regular checks on the syringe
assembly, by disassembly and cleaning if necessary.
Parameter to be calibrated: volume delivered.
Method: for fixed-volume pipettes, distilled water is pipetted into a weighed container
to check the volume actually delivered. Increased accuracy is obtained if the balance
used to check the weight has a weighing chamber saturated with water vapour, often
provided as an accessory on modern electronic balances. Variable volume pipettes
should be calibrated at least at four settings: the maximum volume setting, the mini-
mum volume setting designated by the officer in charge of the autopipette, and two
or more intermediate volume settings, one of which should be below the mid-point
of the range. A variable volume pipette used to dispense a fixed volume only can be
calibrated at that fixed volume. Adjustments to the volume setting mechanism, if
required, should be made according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Calibration interval: the rate of drift from calibration should be determined by

carrying out frequent calibration checks (daily). The calibration interval can then be
lengthened to a time period (normally three month intervals) appropriate for the
conditions of the laboratory.
Melting point apparatus
Parameter to be calibrated: Accuracy of thermometer.
Method: The melting points of reference substances are measured at least twice.
Calibration interval: Half-yearly.
pH meters
Parameter to be calibrated: pH accuracy and linearity.
Method: Commercially-prepared buffers or standard buffers (as specified in a phar-
macopoeia) are used according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Calibration interval: Daily when in use.

Ovens and heating blocks
Parameter to be calibrated: Temperature.
Method: Checked with a portable reference pyrometer or precision thermometer,
which should be placed as close as possible to the oven temperature sensor.
Calibration interval: Annually, and after repairs which may affect the performance
of the oven/heating block.
Water baths
Method: Precision/reference thermometer.
Calibration interval: Quarterly, when water bath thermometer has been replaced, or
when the water bath has not been used for a prolonged period (weeks or months).
Balances
Before use, balances should be checked to ensure that they are clean and level on
the bench. An annual service visit by a qualified maintenance engineer is essential.
At a minimum, balances used for critical weighing (i.e. where the combined uncer-
tainties in the weighing process contribute significantly, say 10 % of the total error,
to the accuracy of the overall result) should have calibration certificates. These
certificates should be issued either by an external accredited body or by properly
trained laboratory personnel. The certificates should be renewed yearly.
Parameter to be calibrated: Accuracy.
Method: Reference weights are used according to the manufacturer’s recommendations.
The user may decide as per fitness for purpose, to use weight standards prepared to
stricter standards than those stated by manufacturer. A typical sequence is to check and
set the zero point with nothing on the balance pan then to place a reference weight on
the pan and adjust the reading to give the correct value. Please note that reference
weights must be handled with great care using forceps with smooth tips, as serrated tips
can result in damage to the weights. Modern electronic balances frequently have internal
calibration weights and the calibration check is carried out automatically, according to
a pre-set sequence created by the manufacturer or, on demand, by the user.
Calibration interval: Microbalances used for preparing reference standards should
be checked daily or each time they are used, if they are not used every day. Top pan
balances for reagents and less critical weights can be checked less frequently, for
example weekly or monthly, but it is important to monitor the rate of drift in the
first instance to determine the correct calibration interval. Calibration checks should
also be carried out whenever the balance has been moved.

Refrigerators and freezers
Method: Precision thermometer. The temperature should be maintained within a
maximum of ±5 degrees of the required temperature.
Calibration interval: continuously.
Instruments for immunological methods
Many different immunological methods are available and most depend on a direct
comparison with calibration standards included in each batch of test samples. Par-
ticularly important is the cut-off concentration of analyte used, and the analyst should
be aware of which cut-off concentrations have been adopted by the manufacturer
of the immunoassay kits in use. Calibration procedures to be followed are those
specified by the manufacturer.
Notable exceptions to this general procedure are the single-test immunoassay
kits (sometimes referred to as “dip-stick” tests), which may have in-built con-
trols, but not always. In principle, these produce a “positive” or “negative” result
if the concentration of the target analyte is above or below the cut-off concen-
tration. It should be noted that there is often some degree of interpretation on
the part of the operator and that, as always, a trained and experienced operator
will produce more accurate and consistent results than one who has little experi-
ence of the method.
UV-Visible spectrometers
Parameter to be calibrated: Wavelength accuracy and repeatability, photometric
accuracy.
Method: UV absorption wavelengths are checked with holmium and didymium filters,
which should be supplied by the manufacturer. The wavelength accuracy and repeat-
ability are checked over the entire UV-visible range. At least two spectra are run.
The maximum deviation is ±1.0 nm.
Calibration interval: Annually.
Infrared spectrometers:
The procedures below are for stand-alone spectrometers. Combined instruments such
as GC-FTIR should be calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Parameter to be calibrated: Resolution.

Method: The total range of the instrument is scanned using a polystyrene film. The
absorption peak at 3095 nm should be resolved from that at 3080 nm and the
absorption at 3020 nm should be resolved from that at 3015 nm.
Calibration interval: Quarterly.
Parameter to be calibrated: Wavelength accuracy.
Method: A polystyrene film is scanned and the accuracy of the peaks at 2852, 1602
and 1028 nm is checked [18]. The accuracy should be within ±3-5 nm in the range
4000-2000 nm and ± 1.5-2.5 nm in the range below 2000 nm.
Calibration interval: Quarterly.
Gas chromatographs
Routine maintenance operations used include checks on the septum, injector liner,
gas pressures and inlet filters (e.g. oxygen scrubber, moisture trap and charcoal trap),
baseline signal level and background noise. Depending on the degree of usage of
the instrument, it is sensible to have a routine maintenance programme involving
weekly change of the septum and injector liner (more often if large numbers of
samples are analysed).
Parameter to be calibrated: Oven temperature.
Method: Checked with a portable reference pyrometer or precision thermometer,
which should be placed as close as possible to the oven temperature sensor.
Parameters to be verified: Column performance (efficiency, resolution, peak shape,
retention times).
Method: A set of regularly-used standard(s) is analysed. The precision of retention
time(s) can be measured by injecting the standard three times or more. Peak areas
can also be measured (see below under integrators). It is useful to plot parameters
such as retention times/indices on a control chart.
Verification interval: Monthly.
Parameters to be verified: Detector sensitivity, baseline signal and background noise.
Method: A set of regularly-used standard(s) is analysed and compared with previ-
ous runs.
Verification interval: Monthly.

Parameters to be calibrated: Flow rates of detector gases.
Method: A bubble flow meter or calibrated electronic flow meter is used according
to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Calibration interval: When detector is cleaned or serviced, or the analytical column
is changed, or when performance has deteriorated. Difficulty in lighting a flame
ionization detector often indicates that the flow rates are incorrect.
High performance liquid chromatographs
Routine maintenance of HPLC systems includes regular changing of inlet and in-line
filters and guard columns, which are usually changed when the back-pressure
increases beyond acceptable limits (i.e. above the maximum column pressure). If
methods are transferred between different instruments, it may be necessary to check
the accuracy of some parameters such as flow rate, column temperature and gradient
composition, which will affect retention times and relative retention times.
Parameter to be calibrated: Flow accuracy.
Method: The column effluent is collected in a measuring cylinder or volumetric
flask over an appropriate interval.
Calibration interval: The absolute flow rate is often less important than its variation
during a set of analyses, but it should be checked if a standardized, official or
recommended method is being implemented.
Parameters to be calibrated: Flow repeatability and precision of injector volume.
Method: A set of regularly-used standards is injected three times or more and the
precision of retention times and peak areas is measured.
Calibration interval: Monthly, or this test may form part of a daily system suitability
test.
Parameter to be calibrated: Detector signal: noise ratio.
Method: A set of regularly used standards is analysed and compared with previous
runs. Baseline noise is measured in intervals of 0.5-1 minute and the average is
calculated. The noise is calculated using a computer programme (if supplied by
the manufacturer) or graphically, by drawing two horizontal lines which enclose
all observed variations and measuring the vertical distance between them. The noise
level can be measured with and without solvent flow, to establish the contribution
made by the solvent delivery system.
Calibration interval: Monthly.

Parameter to be calibrated: Accuracy of detector wavelength(s) (UV-visible and
fluorescence detectors).
Method: UV absorption wavelengths are checked with a holmium oxide filter, sup-
plied by the manufacturer, (and traceable to a primary standard) which has a char-
acteristic absorption wavelength maximum at 361 nm. The wavelength accuracy and
reproducibility are checked over the entire UV-visible range. The maximum (allow-
able) deviation is ±1.0 nm. Fluorescence emission wavelengths are usually checked
using a standard, for example, quinine sulphate which has excitation peaks at 255
and 355 nm and emission peak at 455 nm.
Mass spectrometers
Mass spectrometers are tuned and calibrated in a similar manner whether they are
stand-alone instruments or combined with chromatographic interfaces (GC-MS and
LC-MS and their multi-sector derivations). Differences arise between quadrupole
and magnetic sector instruments, especially if the latter are capable of high resolu-
tion. Most bench-top instruments are controlled directly by a computer data system,
and tuning and calibration are carried out automatically. Warnings are generated by
the data system if the instrument fails to achieve the pre-set performance character-
istics, often mandating operator intervention, for example to clean the source.
Parameters to be calibrated: Source tuning and mass calibration.
Method: A calibration compound such as perfluorokerosene (PFK) or heptacosafluoro
tributylamine (perfluorotributylamine) is introduced to the spectrometer using a
direct inlet device. The source is tuned using selected fragment ions to give optimum
sensitivity and peak shape, and obtain peak ratios (for example, of m/z 69, 219 and
264 and 502 in the perfluorotributylamine spectrum) usually determined by the
manufacturer. Spectra are recorded and compared with the reference spectrum with
respect to mass assignments and relative peak intensities.
Calibration interval: Daily or immediately prior to use
Chromatographic integrators and data systems
The validation of computer systems and software is a particularly important exercise
which should be carried out by the manufacturer. However, it remains the respon-
sibility of the user to ensure that the software has been validated Formal validation
of software can be carried out by the supplier on behalf of the user, but the user
should carry out a formal acceptance test based on acceptance criteria for software.

Manufacturers now routinely include test and diagnostic functions in their products
for system validation.
Parameter to be calibrated: Accuracy of integrated peak areas.
Method: Either an in-built test function in the chromatograph is used or else a
routinely-run standard is used, and compared with previous runs.
Calibration interval: Routine standards are usually run on a daily basis. Tests of
hardware function can be carried out at longer intervals, for example monthly.

49
4.
Model standard operating
procedure for validation of
a new analytical method
A clearly written standard operating procedure (SOP) is required to perform the
validation of a method. Several examples of SOP’s for chromatographic methods
have been published [19]. The following model is not universally applicable since
it is not possible to create a single protocol or SOP to cover all situations. The
guidelines given here are for the most commonly encountered situations.
Laboratory name Revision Page
1/x
Author Reviewer Acceptor Previous revision Date
File Code
Title of the SOP
e.g. Validation of a Gas Chromatographic Methods
Purpose of the SOP
This section should contain be a brief instruction of the method to be validated,
including planning, performance and documentation.
Performance of validation
Insert detailed instructions of the work to be carried out to determine the validation
parameters.

This
could
be
in
the
form
of
a
work
plan,
table,
etc.
as
follows:
Batch
Linearity,
Accuracy
0
36-48
samples
(6
concentration
levels,
6-8
replicate
analysis
in
each
level,
in
addtion
20
specimens
for
inteference
analyses)
Total
36-48
This
table
represents
a
pre-validation
study
to
determine
the
usefulness
of
the
method.
Batch
Calibration
standards
Validation
samples
LLOQ
Intermediate
level
ULOQ
(6
levels
+
blank)
Accuracy
Accuracy
Recovery
Stability
Accuracy
Selectivity
Samples
total
1
6-8
replicates
3
3
3
12
27-29
2
6-8
replicates
3
3
12
3
27-29
3
6-8
replicates
3
3
8
3
23-25
4
6-8
replicates
3
3
3
15-17
5
6-8
replicates
3
3
3
15-17
Total
139-175
samples

Part IV. Model standard operating procedure for validation of a new analytical method 51
Calculation of results and interpretation
Describe the procedures how to calculate the parameters using the experimental
results and acceptance criteria—see part 2.9. of this manual.
Reporting the results
Report the results of validation. The method should be described, the results for
each validation parameter should be documented and conclusions should be drawn
as to whether the method is fit for purpose.
Archiving the validation study data
The validation report (signed, dated and authorized) should be retained along with
the validation plan and all the experimental validation data under secure storage
and be readily retrievable.
References
These are the ones referred to in this SOP e.g. references describing the theory of
validation.

53
References
1. UNODC publications: Brochure on the International QualityAssurance Programme
pamphlet and Protocol for the International Collaborative Exercises. These can be down-
loaded from UNODC at: www.unodc.org/unodc/en/scientists/publications.html
2. D.R. Jenke, “Chromatographic Method Validation: A review of Current Prac-
tices and Procedures. I. General Concepts and Guidelines”, J. Liq. Chrom. and Rel.

Technol., vol. 19 (1996), pp. 719-736.
3. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Guidance for the Implementation of a
Quality Management System in Drug Testing Laboratories, ST/NAR/37, 2009.
4. General criteria of competence for calibration and testing laboratories, UKAS,
Teddington, UK.
5. Scientific Working Group for the Analysis of Seized Drugs, Scientific Working
Group for the Analysis of Seized Drugs (SWGDRUG) Recommendations, 2008.
6. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical
Commission, ISO/IEC 17025:2005 General Requirements for Competence of Testing
and Calibration Laboratories.
7. E. Prichard (ed.), Trace Analysis: A structural approach to obtaining reliable

results. (Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, 1996), pp 32/39.
8. Eurachem/ Cooperation on International Traceability in Analytical Chemis-
try (CITAC), EURACHEM/CITAC Guide: Expression of uncertainty in qualitative

testing, 2003.
9. Eurachem/Cooperation on International Traceability in Analytical Chemis-
try (CITAC), EURACHEM/CITAC Guide: Measurement uncertainty arising from

sampling: A guide to methods and approaches, 2007.
10. Eurachem/ Cooperation on International Traceability in Analytical Chemistry
(CITAC), EURACHEM/CITAC Guide CG4: Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical
Measurement, 2nd Edition, 2000.

11. SWGDRG, Quality Assurance/General Practices Recommendations, 2008.
12. A.G. Rowley, Evaluating Uncertainty for Laboratories, A Practical Handbook
(version 1.1, 2001).
13. Eurachem/Cooperation on International Traceability in Analytical Chemistry
(CITAC), EURACHEM/CITAC Guide: Guide to Quality in Analytical Chemistry,
2002.
14. L. Huber, Good Laboratory Practice: A primer for HPLC, CE and UV-visible
spectroscopy (Hewlett-Packard Co., publication No. 12-5091-6259E, 1993).
15. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9000:2000 Quality manage
ment systems—Fundamentals and vocabulary.
16. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9001: 2008. Quality manage
ment systems—Requirements.
17. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical
Commission, ISO/IEC 17025:2005 General Requirements for Competence of Testing
and Calibration Laboratories, paragraphs 5.5-5.6.
18. World Health Organization, The International Pharmacopoeia: General Methods
of Analysis, vol. 1, 3rd Edition, 1979.
19. David M. Bliesner, Validating Chromatographic Methods, (John Wiley and Sons,
2006, p. 72).
Further information about reference documents can be obtained at (16 June 2009):
UNODC www.unodc.org/
SWGDRUG www.swgdrug.org/
ISO www.iso.org/iso/home.htm
EURACHEM www.eurachem.org/

55
Annex.
A glossary of terms used
in the validation and
calibration manual
Definitions are taken from the UNODC Glossary (ST/NAR/26) plus additional terms
or additional definitions (marked with an asterisk). References to the sources of
definitions can be found in ST/NAR/26, if not given below.
Acceptance criteria: Conditions which must be fulfilled before an operation, process
or item, such as a piece of equipment, is considered to be satisfactory or to have
been completed in a satisfactory way. Specific examples are given below.
Acceptance criteria (for software):* The criteria a software product must meet
to complete successfully a test phase or to achieve delivery requirements.
Acceptance criteria for specimens: Procedures for acceptance or rejection
of specimens arriving at the analytical laboratory. Such procedures are
focused on assessing the adequacy of chain of custody.
Accuracy (bias, trueness): Ability to get the true result [1]. For quantitative tests
the accuracy expresses the closeness of agreement between the true value and the
value obtained by applying the test procedure a number of times. It is affected by
systematic and random errors.
Accuracy (of a measuring instrument):
“Ability of a measuring instrument to give responses close to a true value.”
Note: In this context accuracy is a qualitative concept [2].
Analyte (or target analyte): Substance to be identified or measured.
Surrogate analyte: A well-characterized substance which is taken as rep-
resentative of the analyte [3].
Analytical run or batch:* A complete set of analytical samples with appropriate
number of standards and quality control samples for their validation. Several runs
(or batches) may be completed in one day, or one run (or batch) may take several
days to complete.

Analytical system (measurement system):* A complete set of measuring instru-
ments and other equipment assembled to carry out a specified measurement task
[4]. In the context of analysing controlled drugs in seized materials or biological
specimens, the analytical system consists of the laboratory balance(s), pH meter,
chromatograph, thin layer chromatography equipment etc. which are used by the
analyst to carry out the analysis.
Arithmetic mean or average: Sum of the individual values in a set divided by the
number of values.
Average: See arithmetic mean.
Batch (or analytical batch): A group of one or more samples that are analysed
under conditions approaching repeatability. Usually it should contain calibrators and
quality control samples in addition to the real samples to be analysed.
Biological matrix:* A discrete material of biological origin that can be sampled
and processed in a reproducible manner. Examples are blood, serum, plasma, urine,
faeces, saliva, sputum, and various discrete tissues
Blank: Specimen not containing the analyte.
Calibration: The set of operations which establish, under specified conditions, the
relationship between values indicated by a measuring instrument or measuring sys-
tem, or values represented by a material measure, and the corresponding known
values of a measurand
Calibration curve: The relationship between the signal response of the instrument
and various concentrations of analyte in a suitable solvent or matrix.
Calibration interval:* The frequency of specific performance tests that are made
on each instrument or item of equipment as part of the laboratory’s preventive
maintenance programme.
Calibration range:* See range.
Calibration standard:* a biological matrix to which a known amount of analyte
has been added or spiked. Calibration standards are used to construct calibration
curves from which the concentrations of analytes in quality control and unknown
samples are determined.
Calibrator: Pure analyte in a suitable solvent or matrix used to prepare the cali-
bration curve. Calibrators are similar in composition to controls but must be pre-
pared separately from them, since controls are used to check on the accuracy of
the
calibration curve.

Annex 57
Candidate method:* An analytical method which has been selected and developed
for a particular analytical problem and which must be validated to show that it is
fit for the intended analytical purpose before being used.
Certification: Procedure by which a certifying body gives formal recognition that
the body, person or product complies with given specifications.
Certified reference material (CRM): A reference material one or more of whose
property values are certified by a technical procedure, accompanied by or traceable
to a certificate or other documentation which is issued by a certifying body.
Certifying body: Independent science-based organization which has the competence
to grant certifications. The certifying body may or may not be accredited.
Co-chromatography:* This is a procedure in which the purified test solution prior
to the chromatographic step(s) is divided into two parts and:
- one part is chromatographed as such;
-
the standard analyte that is to be identified is added to the other part and
this mixed solution of test solution and standard analyte is chromato-
graphed. The amount of standard analyte has to be similar to the estimated
amount of the analyte in the test solution [5].
Coefficient of variation (or relative standard deviation): A measure used to
compare the dispersion or variation in groups of measurements. It is the ratio
of the standard deviation to the mean, multiplied by 100 to convert it to a per-
centage of the average.
Collaborative studies or interlaboratory test comparisons: Organization, per-
formance and evaluation of tests on the same or similar items or materials by two
or more different laboratories in accordance with predetermined conditions. The main
purpose is validation of analytical methods or establishment of reference methods.
Concentration: Amount of a substance, expressed in mass or molar units, in a unit
volume of fluid or mass of solid.
Confidence level (or confidence coefficient): The measure of probability associated
with a confidence interval expressing the probability of the truth of a statement that
the interval will include the parameter value.
Confidence interval: A range of values which contains the true value at a given
level of probability. This level of probability is called the confidence level.
Contamination:* Gain of analyte during the extraction process, in contrast to the
losses usually incurred which are assessed by the recovery.

Control chart: Graphical plot of test results with respect to time or sequence of
measurements, with limits drawn within which results are expected to lie when the
analytical scheme is in a state of statistical control [6].
Controls: Specimens used to determine the validity of the calibration curve, that
is, the linearity and stability over time of a quantitative test or determination. Con-
trols are either prepared from the reference material (separately from the calibrators,
that is, weighed or measured separately), purchased, or obtained from a pool of
previously analysed specimens. Where possible, controls should be matrix-matched
to specimens and calibrators.
Correction for recovery:* The recovery of analytes in a method is frequently less
than 100%. If there is no internal standard (which automatically compensates for
incomplete recovery) then the results of analysis must be multiplied by a correction
factor to obtain the values which would have been produced if the recovery had
been 100%. This implies that the recovery of the method is known, which will be
true if the method has been validated, as recovery is one of the performance char-
acteristics which is measured.
Correlation coefficient: A number showing the degree to which two variables are
related. Correlation coefficients range from 0 (no correlation) to –1 or +1 (perfect
correlation).
Cut-off concentration (or threshold): The concentration of a drug in a specimen
used to determine whether the specimen is considered positive or negative. In some
circumstances it is recommended that the cut-off concentration should be set equal
to the limit of detection. See also threshold.
End determination (end-step determination):* The final step in a sequence of
stages comprising an analytical method, usually involving the application of a
technique to an extract or other sample preparation to produce data on the com-
position of the sample.
Equipment:* In general, the apparatus required for any operation [7]. More specifi-
cally, the analytical measurement hardware, for example a gas chromatograph.
Error: Something done which is considered to be incorrect or wrong.
Random error: A component of the total error of a measurement which
varies in an unpredictable way. This causes the individual results to fall on
both sides of the average value.
Systematic error: A component of the total error of a measurement which
varies in a constant way. This causes all the results to be in error in the
same sense.
Total error: The sum of random and systematic errors.

Annex 59
External standard:* One prepared directly from a reference substance, for example
as a stock solution or serial dilutions of the stock solution. It is not prepared in the
same type of matrix as the specimens or samples for analysis and therefore there
is no requirement for an extraction step prior to analysis.
False negative: A test result which states that no drug is present when, in fact, a
tested drug or metabolite is present in an amount greater than a threshold or a
designated cut-off value
Goodness of fit: How well a model, a theoretical distribution, or an equation matches
actual data.
Instrument (instrumentation, measuring instrument):* A device intended to
make a measurement, alone or in conjunction with other equipment.
Interference study:* A study to check the selectivity (or specificity) of a method
by adding materials which might be encountered in specimens and which it is sus-
pected might cause interference.
Interlaboratory studies (or interlaboratory tests comparisons): See collaborative
studies.
Internal standard: The addition of a fixed amount of a known substance which is
not already present as a constituent of the specimen in order to identify or quantify
other components. The physico-chemical characteristics of the internal standard
should be as close as possible those of the analyte. Test compound(s) (e.g. structur-
ally similar analog, stable labelled compound) added to both calibration standards
and samples at known and constant concentration to facilitate quantification of the
target analyte(s).
International standard:* A standard recognized by an international agreement to
serve internationally as the basis for fixing the value of all other standards of the
quantity concerned.
Laboratory: Facilities where analyses are performed by qualified personal and with
adequate equipment.
Laboratory manager:* The qualified individual who assumes professional, organi-
zational, educational and administrative responsibility for the laboratory’s drug
testing.
Limit of detection (LOD): The smallest measured content from which it is possible
to deduce the presence of the analyte with reasonable statistical certainty. The lowest
concentration of an analyte that the analytical procedure can reliably differentiate
from background noise. The lowest content that can be measured with reasonable
statistical certainty

Limit of quantitation (LOQ)/lower limit of quantification (LLOQ): The smallest
measured content from which it is possible to quantify the analyte with an acceptable
level of accuracy and precision. In some laboratories the LLOQ is termed the lowest
calibration concentration of the working range, as accuracy and precision of this
concentration is verified in every analytical run/batch. The content equal to greater
than the lowest concentration point on the calibration curve.
Linear regression: A method of describing the relationship between two or more
variables by calculating a “best fitting” straight line or graph.
Linearity:* The linearity of an analytical method is its ability to elicit test results
that are directly, or by means of well-defined mathematical transformations, propor-
tional to the concentration of analytes in samples within a given range. (See also
linear regression). Linearity defines the ability of the method to obtain test results
proportional to the concentration of the analyte.
Matrix: Material that contains the analyte, e.g. urine or blood.
Matrix effect:* The direct or indirect alteration or interference in response of an
instrument such as LC-MS/MS due to the presence of unintended analytes (for
analysis) or other interfering substances in the samples.
Mean: When not otherwise specified, refers to arithmetic mean.
Measurement:* The set of operations having the object of determining a value of
a quantity.
Measurement system:* See analytical system.
Measuring instrument:* See instrument.
Method (or analytical method): Detailed (defined) procedure of a technical opera-
tion for performing an analysis.
Method authorization form:* A document which certifies that an analytical method
has been validated for its intended purpose in the laboratory and has been authorized
for that purpose by the laboratory manager, who should sign the form.
Method validation:* Confirmation by examination and provision of objective evi-
dence that the particular requirements for a specific intended use of a method are
fulfilled [8]. The United States Pharmacopoeia defines validation of an analytical
method as the process by which it is established, by laboratory studies, that the
performance characteristics of the method meet the requirements for the intended

analytical application. A working definition may include the ideas that a valid method.
- is suitable (reliable) for its purpose;
- provides useful analytical data in a specific situation;

Annex 61
- meets the pre-determined requirements (specifications) of the analytical problem;
- has an established level of performance (accuracy, consistency, reliability);
- does what it is supposed to do.
National standard:* A standard recognized by an official national decision as the basis
for fixing the value, in a country, of all other standards of the quantity concerned.
Negative: Indicates that the analyte is absent or below a designated cut-off concen-
tration. “Not detected” is sometimes used as a synonym of negative although this
is not recommended.
Organization: Companies, corporations or institutes (or part of one, e.g. laboratory)
private or public, that has its own functions and administration. Some of the inter-
national organizations dealing with quality assurance are: ISO, IUPAC, IOC, TIAFT,
IFCC, IPCS, OECD.
Performance characteristics:* These are key aspects of an analytical method which
are evaluated for the purposes of method development and validation, including
accuracy (bias), linearity, limit of detection, limit of quantitation, range, recovery,
repeatability, reproducibility, ruggedness, and specificity (selectivity).
Performance qualification:* See performance verification.
Performance verification (or performance qualification):* A formal and nation-
ally traceable method of evaluating the performance of an instrument against previ-
ously defined procedures and specifications. Performance verification should involve
the use of tests which are not method-specific and which use Nationally-traceable
calibrators and standards
Positive: Indicates that the analyte is present at a level above a designated cut-of
concentration.
Practicability:* The ability to put something into practice. In the laboratory, this
means the absence of unnecessarily sophisticated equipment, reagents, instruments,
or environmental conditions, so that a method is suitable for routine use [9].
Precision: The closeness of agreement (degree of scatter) between independent test
results obtained under prescribed conditions. It is generally dependent on analyte
concentration, and this dependence should be determined and documented. The
measure of precision is usually expressed in terms of imprecision and computed as
a standard deviation of the test results. Higher imprecision is reflected by a larger
standard deviation. Independent test results means results obtained in a manner not
influenced by any previous results on the same or similar material. Precision covers
repeatability and reproducibility.

A measure for the reproducibility of measurements within a set, that is, of the scat-
ter or dispersion of a set about its central value.
Precision (intermediate):* Precision measured in-between repeatability and repro-
ducibility conditions: for example precision measured between different analysts,
over extended timescales, within a single laboratory. Expresses within laboratory
variation: different days, different analysts, different equipment, etc.
Primary standard:* A standard which has the highest metrological qualities in a
specified field.
Probability: A mathematical measurement of how likely it is that something will
happen, expressed as a fraction or percentage. Values for statistical probability range
from 1 or 100% (always) to 0 or 0% (never). The relative frequency obtained after
a long run of measurements or results will give good approximations to the true
probabilities. Also, it is a basic concept which may be taken either as indefinable,
expressing in some way a “degree of belief”, or as the limiting frequency of an
occurrence in an infinite random series.
Procedure: A specified way to perform an activity. For quality assurance purposes
the procedures should be written. Specified way to carry out an activity or process.
Quality assurance: All the planned and systematic activities implemented within
the quality system, to provide adequate confidence that a laboratory will fulfil
requirements for quality. Part of quality management focused on providing confi-
dence that quality requirements will be fulfilled.
Quality control: The overall system of laboratory procedures and processes which
controls the quality of the laboratory’s analytical results.
Quality manual: A document stating the general quality policies, procedures and
practices of an organization [10]. Document specifying the quality management
system of an organization.
Quantitation (quantification) range:* The range of concentrations, including ULOQ
and LLOQ, that can reliably and reproducibly quantified with accuracy and precision
through the use of a concentration-response relationship (see also range).
Random error: See error.
Range (working range, calibration range): Concentration interval for which
acceptable accuracy and precision can be achieved. Statistically it is the difference
between the minimum and the maximum values of a set of measurements.
Recovery: The percentage of the drug, metabolite, or internal standard originally
in the specimen that reaches the end of the procedure.

Annex 63
Term used in analytical and preparative chemistry to denote the fraction of the total
quantity of a substance recoverable following a chemical procedure. It is measured
by adding a known amount of analyte to a blank matrix and comparing this with
the amount measured as present by analysis.
Reference method: One which is developed by organizations or groups that use
collaborative studies or similar approaches to validate them. Its value depends on
the authority of the organizations which sponsor it.
Reference standard: A standard, generally of the highest quality available at a
given location, from which measurements made at that location are derived.
Reliability: The extent to which an experiment, test, or measuring procedure yields
accurate results on repeated trials.
Repeatability (or repeatable): The closeness of the agreement between the results
of successive measurements of the same analyte made under repeatable conditions,
e.g. same method, same material, same operator, same laboratory, narrow time
period. Results should be expressed in terms of the repeatability standard deviation,
repeatability coefficient of variation, or the confidence interval of the mean value.
Closeness of the agreement between the results of successive measurements of the
same measurand carried out under the same conditions of measurement.
Replicability:* See replicate analysis.
Replicate analysis: The multiple analysis of separate portions of a test material
using the same test method under the same conditions e.g. same operator, same
equipment, same laboratory.
Reproducibility (within laboratory): The closeness of the agreement between the
results of successive measurements of the same analyte in identical material made
by the same method under different conditions, e.g. different operators, different
laboratories, long time period. Results should be expressed in terms of the reprodu
cibility standard deviation; reproducibility coefficient of variation, or the confidence
interval of the mean value. It also represents precision of the method under the same
operating conditions over a short period of time. Closeness of the agreement between
the results of measurements of the same measurand carried out under changed
conditions of measurement.
Robustness:* The ability of a method to remain unaffected by small but deliberate
variations in the main parameters of the method. The robustness of an analytical
procedure is a measure of its capacity to remain unaffected by small but deliberate
variations in method parameters and provides an indication of its reliability during
normal usage.
Ruggedness:* The ability of a measurement process to withstand small uncontrolled
or unintentional changes in its operating conditions. The ruggedness of an analytical

method is the degree of reproducibility of test results obtained by the analysis of
the same samples under a variety of conditions, such as different laboratories, ana-
lysts, instruments, lots of reagents, elapsed assay times, assay temperatures or days.
Ruggedness is normally expressed as the lack of influence on the test results of
operational and environmental variables of the analytical method. Ruggedness is a
measure of reproducibility of test results under the variation in conditions normally
expected from laboratory to laboratory and from analyst to analyst.
Ruggedness test:* An intralaboratory experimental plan, used before undertaking
an interlaboratory study, to examine the behaviour of an analytical process when
small changes in the environmental and/or operating conditions are made, akin to
those likely to arise in different laboratories.
Selectivity (or specificity): Refers to the extent to which a method can determine
particular analyte(s) in a complex mixture without interference from the other com-
ponents in the mixture. A method which is perfectly selective for an analyte or
group of analytes is said to be specific. The term specific (in analysis) is considered
as the ultimate of selectivity.
Qualitative: The extent to which other substances interfere with the determination
of a substance according to a given procedure; quantitative: a term use din conjunc-
tion with another substantive (e.g. constant coefficient, index, factor, number) for
the quantitative characterization of interferences.
Sensitivity: (a) The difference in analyte concentration corresponding to the small-
est difference in the response of the method that can be detected. It is represented
by the slope of the calibration curve. It is also equivalent to three time the average
background reading produced by blank samples from as many different sources as
possible (5 minimum, but 20 different sources are ideal). Sometimes sensitivity is
erroneously used instead of limit of detection.
(b) The incidence of true positive results obtained when a test is applied to
samples known to contain the analyte [11].
(c) The change in the response of a measuring instrument divided by the

corresponding change in the stimulus
Specification: Statement of requirements, usually in written form.
Specificity: (a) See selectivity.
(b) Incidence of true negative results obtained when a test is applied to sam-
ples known not to contain the analyte.
(c) The ability of a method to measure only what is applied to samples.
“Specificity is the ability to assess unequivocally the analyte in the presence of
components which may be expected to be present. Typically these might include
impurities, degradants, matrix etc.”

Annex 65
Specimen: Any material for examination, study or analysis.
Spiked sample: A test material containing a known addition of analyte.
Stability (of sample during the analysis): Resistance to decomposition or other
chemical changes, or to physical disintegration.
Standard analyte:* A well-defined substance in its highest available purity to be
used as a reference in the analysis.
Standard deviation: A statistic that shows the spread or dispersion of results in a
distribution of results. It is calculated by taking the square root of the variance. It
is applicable to all kinds of repeated measurements, e.g. between batch, within batch,
repeatability, reproducibility, etc.
Standard operating procedure (SOP): Written procedures which describe how to
perform certain laboratory activities.
System suitability test:* Validation of an analytical system (system suitability test-
ing) tests a system against documented performance specifications, for a specific
analytical method [12].
Systematic error: See error.
Technique:* A technique is a scientific principle, for example gas chromatography
or ultraviolet spectrometry, that can be used to provide data on the composition of
a material. It is unusual to apply a technique directly to a test sample, as extraction
and other steps are frequently required. A technique is therefore used in the last
step of an analytical method which is usually the end-determination or end-step
determination.
Test: A technical operation to determine one or more characteristics of or to evalu-
ate the performance of a given product, material, equipment, organism, physical
phenomenon, process or service according to a specified procedure.
Theoretical probability distribution: The number of times it can be expected to
get a particular number of successes in a large number of trials. Important theoreti-
cal probability distributions are the normal, t-, chi-square and F-distributions.
Threshold: A particular, significant amount, level, or limit, at which something
begins to happen or take effect. See also Cut-off concentration.
Traceable: See traceability.
Traceable standard:* A reference standard which also has the property of traceabil-
ity. It will usually have a certificate of analysis giving details of the national or
international standards used to determine its composition.

Traceability: The ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity by
means of recorded identification. The property of a result of a measurement whereby
it can be related to appropriate standards, generally international or national stand-
ards, through an unbroken chain of comparisons. Property of the result of a meas-
urement or the value of a standard whereby it can be related with a stated uncertainty,
to stated references, usually national or international standards (i.e. through an
unbroken chain of comparisons. Ability to trace the history, application or location
of that which is under consideration.
True value: See value.
Uncertainty: A parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that char-
acterises the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the
analyte. An estimate attached to a test result which characterizes the range of values
within which the true value is asserted to lie.
Upper limit of quantification (ULOQ): the highest amount of an analyte in a
sample that can be quantitatively determined with precision and accuracy.
Validation: Confirmation by examination and provision of objective evidence that
the particular requirements for a specific intended use are fulfilled. See also method
validation.
Value: The expression of a quantity in terms of a number and an appropriate unit
of measurement.
True value: The value which characterizes a quantity perfectly defined in the condi-
tions which exist when that quantity is considered. The true value of a quantity is
an ideal concept and, in general, cannot be known exactly. Value consistent with
the definition of a given particular quantity.
Verification: Confirmation by examination and provision of objective evidence that
specified requirements have been fulfilled. Confirmation, through the provision of
objective evidence, that specified requirements have been fulfilled.
Working range:* See range.

67
Bibliography
National Institute for Drug Abuse, Urine Testing for Drugs of Abuse, Research Mono
graph 73 (Rockville, Maryland, Department of Health and Human Services, 1986).
IUPAC, Compendium of Analytical Nomenclature, The Orange Book—3rd Edition, J.
Inczedy, T. Lengyel, and A.M. Ure, Blackwell Science, 1998 [ISBN 0-632-05127-2],
available on-line at http://old.iupac.org/publications/analytical_compendium/
IOC/Reference Materials Committee of ISO, “Quality control of analytical data
produced in chemical laboratories”, Publication 271, draft protocol presented to the
Fifth International Symposium on the Harmonization of Internal Quality Assurance
Schemes for Analytical Laboratories, Washington, D.C., 23 July 1993.
International Organisation for Standardisation, International Vocabulary of Basic and
General Terms Used in Metrology (Geneva, 1984).
European Community, Guideline Criteria for Reference Methods, BNL SP/Lab/div
(92) 5 (1992), p. 27.
IOC/REMCO N 271: Quality Control of Analytical Data Produced in Chemical
Laboratories, presented at the Fifth International Symposium on the Harmonization
of Internal Quality Assurance Schemes for Analytical Laboratories, 23 July, 1993,

Washington D.C.
Chambers English Dictionary, W and R Chambers Ltd., Edinburgh (1990).
International Organization for Standardization/Development Information System
8402, Quality Management and Quality Assurance Vocabulary (Geneva, 1991).
G.T. Wernimont in W. Spendley (Ed.), Use of Statistics to Develop and Evaluate

Methods, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, p. 78-82 (1985).
QualityAssurance: the Route to Efficiency and Competitiveness, 3rd Edition, L.
Stebbing,
Ellis Horwood (1993).
R.S. Galen and S.R. Gambino, Beyond Normality: The Predictive Value and
Efficiency
of Medical Diagnoses, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1975.
L. Huber, Validation of Computerized Analytical Systems, Interpharm Press Inc.,

Buffalo Grove, IL, 1996.

Guidance for the
Validation of Analytical Methodology
and Calibration of Equipment used
for Testing of Illicit Drugs in Seized
Materials and Biological Specimens
Vienna International Centre, PO Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel.: (+43-1) 26060-0, Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5866, www.unodc.org
A commitment to quality and continuous improvement
*0984578*
United Nations publication
Printed in Austria
Sales No.E.09.XI.16
ST/NAR/41
USD 15
ISBN 978-92-1-148243-0
V.09-84578—October 2009—350

HPLC calibration;Validation of Analytical Methodology and Calibration

More Related Content

Similar to HPLC calibration;Validation of Analytical Methodology and Calibration (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

HPLC calibration;Validation of Analytical Methodology and Calibration